Authenticity

That wonderfully smart and readable columnist at the New York Times, Paul Krugman, whom the NYT puts behind their TimesSelect wall, writes about authenticity in the politics of years past, as opposed to what passes for authenticity today.

Let me give you one example — a Democrat who said he’d work on behalf of workers and the poor. He even said he’d take on Big Business. But the truth is that while he was saying those things, he was living in a big house and had a pretty lavish summer home too. His favorite recreation, sailing, was incredibly elitist. And he didn’t talk like a regular guy.

Clearly, this politician wasn’t authentic. His name? Franklin Delano Roosevelt.

That was then. Authentic or not, during an incredibly difficult time, FDR put in place, policies and programs such as Social Security and the WPA that did, in the end, help millions of Americans who needed help.

Krugman goes on:

What does authenticity mean? Supposedly it means not pretending to be who you aren’t. But that definition doesn’t seem to fit the way the term is actually used in political reporting.

For example, the case of F.D.R. shows that there’s nothing inauthentic, in the normal sense of the word, about calling for higher taxes on the rich while being rich yourself. If anything, it’s to your credit if you advocate policies that will hurt your own financial position. But the news media seem to find it deeply disturbing that John Edwards talks about fighting poverty while living in a big house.

....

Oh, and as a candidate George W. Bush was praised as being more authentic than Al Gore. As late as November 2005, MSNBC’s chief political correspondent declared that Mr. Bush’s authenticity was his remaining source of strength. But now The A.P. says that Mr. Bush’s lack of credibility is the reason his would-be successors need to seem, yes, authentic.

Talk of authenticity, it seems, lets commentators and journalists put down politicians they don’t like or praise politicians they like, with no relationship to what the politicians actually say or do.

Beyond the vast amounts of money that are poured into campaigns, and the lengthy campaign period - to the point that we are all bored nearly to death by the candidates by the time we cast even a primary vote - we now have the fight for "authenticity". Of course, you don't have to actually be "authentic" - whatever meaning the word has taken on - you simply have to appear "authentic".

Krugman's advice to the media and the electorate:

Here’s a suggestion: Why not evaluate candidates’ policy proposals, rather than their authenticity? And if there are reasons to doubt a candidate’s sincerity, spell them out.

My, my, what a radical idea!

The coup de grâce, comes at the end:

The point is that questions about a candidate shouldn’t be whether he or she is “authentic.” They should be about motives: whose interests would the candidate serve if elected? And think how much better shape the nation would be in if enough people had asked that question seven years ago.

If you have access to TimesSelect, do read the entire column.

A wee confession: I have a problem with Edwards' $400 haircuts. Not because I believe that he should not get expensive haircuts - although why anyone needs a $400 haircut is puzzling to me - but because after the $400 haircut, his hair still looks so incredibly limp and lame that I wonder about his judgment.

Re the haircut: does this look like $400?



Photo by Rachel Feierman from Flickr.

Permission for use of phote from Creative Commons under these terms.